The fiasco was created by none other than Najib Razak’s own stooges, in the hopes to seize whatever power they perceive to gain before the run up of 2018 general election.The comment is as below:To deflect scorns heaped on them for the move to topple Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir, the mutineers and their ilk have “moralised” the plot on grounds that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, when he was Prime Minister had removed a Kedah Mentri Besar despite opposition from the majority of the State Assemblymen.To them, if Dr Mahathir, the father of Mukhriz, can remove Tan Sri Osman Aroff, why can’t the current Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak support their demand for the removal of Mukhriz?Superficially, their ground sounds acceptable.But a little scratching on the surface reveals there are numerous fundamental flaws to their justification and in fact, is hypocritical and of course, self-serving.Firstly, Osman Aroff was removed in 1996, more than 11 years in office and by the time he resigned; he was already saddled with allegations of corruption, including a very public disclosure by one Syed Mansor Syed Salim.Osman Aroff’s earlier threat of suing Syed Mansor and later reneging from pursuing it had scandalised the Mentri Besar, his office and Umno as well.Lest people forget, two high-profiled scandals that dogged Osman Aroff were the Jerai International Park and the Kerpan tiger prawn-rearing project.Secondly, the removal of Osman Aroff was pursued by Dr Mahathir, who himself is a Kedahan and the State Umno leader meaning that he would have the pulse of the state in his hand and his decision would have taken into consideration the impact of such move to the people in the State.Thirdly, the push to remove Osman Aroff was not initiated by “unsuccessful” or failed politicians but rather by those who had successfully ensured a sound victory for Umno and Barisan Nasional in the 1995 general elections.

Mahathir and Osman Aroff

If fact, there was popular belief among Kedahans that Osman Aroff’s continued leadership would lead to Kedah falling to the Opposition in the subsequent election in particular because of the scandalous Kerpan project.Juxtapose this to the move to remove Mukhriz.He is only in his third year in office and not scandalised whatsoever. In fact, he is highly regarded among Kedahans and that cuts across party lines.Secondly, the move to remove Mukhriz is initiated by those who had lost Kedah in the 2008 general election to the Opposition.In desperation, the likes of Datuk Ahmad Bashah Md Hanifah, chief mutineer and supported by Datuk Seri Mahadzir Khalid the Mentri Besar who lost the State in 2008, were prepared to turn to Mukhriz and agreed to him being made the Mentri Besar merely to win back the state.This is not taking into consideration the likes of Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom and he had yet to convincingly clear himself up over the Yapeim foundation scandals regarding the use of public contributions in his overseas trips and purchase of a golf simulator.In the line up was also Datuk Seri Azeez Rahim who chairs the national Pilgrimage Fund board or Tabung Haji. He too had not been able to convince the public over last year’s move to allegedly attempt to bailout the scandalous 1MDB sovereign fund by using the savings of pilgrims to buy a piece of land at an inflated price.Being the more senior politicians, it was with their consent that Najib, who was also then desperate to win back Kedah, in the hope to affirm his position as the new Prime Minister, announced during the campaign in the State that Mukhriz would be the Mentri Besar if BN won.

Najib and Bashah

In other words, Mukhriz is an important item in the Kedah BN manifesto in the 2013 general election. By removing Mukhriz, it means that Najib had reneged from a manifesto promise, against his own dictum of “Janji Ditepati (Fulfilling Promises)”.As far as election manifestoes go, a promise made must be kept until the end of the term, meaning if Najib wants to remove Mukhriz, the least he could have done is to wait until the next election.Furthermore, an election promise is to the people of Kedah and not merely an Umno/BN affair. To remove Mukhriz merely on the whims of self-serving Umno politicians is an insult to the people of Kedah.If Najib and his Kedah apparatchiks insist that Mukhriz had lost the popular support, a survey conducted by the Information Department, a Federal agency, on more than 10,000 Kedahans over a period of two days (20 Jan to 21 Jan and adopting the snowball technique) showed 97 per cent of the respondents want Mukhriz to remain their Mentri Besar.If that is not enough to convince Najib and the apparatchiks, they should get an independent body to conduct such surveys on themselves.But until and unless they do that, they have to accept the popular sentiment – the rakyat has had enough of them. - jebatmustdie

The debate over the RM2.6 billion donation has been raging for six months, and since Tuesday there has been a new twist, with the disclosure that RM2.03 billion was returned to the donor.And now both detractors and supporters of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak are locking horns over this issue.On the pro-Najib portal MyKMU.net, the target is veteran newsman A Kadir Jasin, whom it described as a fan of former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.The portal argued that the prime minister could have 'rembat' (walloped) the entire sum, but did not do so because he is not a bandit."The donation came in before the 13th general election. When the election was over, and the money was not used up, it (the remainder) was returned to the Saudi royal family."Najib has a noble heart. Kadir should not equate him with others, who would have pocketed all the money if they had a similar chance.A noble hearted person would have made sure that the money was properly lodged and that everything would have been above board. The only reason he is 'noble' (as claimed) is that he was found out. If all of these things happened so long ago, then surely he could have come out with all the required evidence and documents to prove that he was noble and that all was accounted for. He could have turned up at the Nothing2Hide forum and produced all the evidence that would have shut all of us, me included, up. But he needed time, time to fabricate more lies and stories and documents so that he could be seen to have returned the money (from an apparently frozen account). BTW what's so noble about taking money from 1MDB (RM42 million)? His supporters do not seem to understand the definition of the word noble. To them it just means not to be totally corrupt. For them 95% is considered 'noble'. There is something fundamentally wrong with such reasoning. - GE14NOW!MyKMU.net also urged Kadir, who has been critical of Najib, to refer to the BBC report on the donation.In its report, BBC quoted a "well-placed" Saudi source, who wished to remain anonymous, as saying that the donation came from the late King Abdullah.There are contradictory views on the authenticity of the donation allegedly made by the late Saudi ruler, King Abdullah, to Najib in March-April 2013. According to the BBC, an unnamed Saudi source has confirmed the deposition of US$681 million from the Saudi monarch into Najib's personal account.A report in the Wall Street Journal however has cast doubts on the claim. It says that "A Saudi government official while declining to comment specifically on the prosecutor's statement said that the Saudi ministries of foreign affairs and finance had no information about such a gift and that a royal donation to the personal bank account of a foreign leader would be unprecedented".- thesundailyThe money was channelled to Najib in order to win the 2013 general election amid concerns in Riyadh about the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood.Attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali also revealed that the investigations conducted by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) showed there were no elements of corruption.Apandi said the sum was wired to Najib with no strings attached. - mkIf it is true, as suggested by the BBC story that the donation was to help Najib and the Barisan Nasional to win the 13th General Election in May 2013, it raises a serious ethical question.How can the leader of a foreign nation – which incidentally does not hold elections – seek to determine the outcome of an election in our country through the use of money?Wouldn't that be a violation of election rules? Would that be a corrupt act implicating both the giver and the recipient?How would we have reacted if it was known that the President of Indonesia or the Prime Minister of Singapore had through secret donations, attempted to determine election results in Malaysia? Since the AG claims that US$620 million was returned to the sender in August 2013, one wonders why when it became public knowledge that there was a huge sum of money in the prime minister's personal bank account in July 2015, there was no attempt by Najib or anyone around him to inform the people that most of the money had been returned to the sender? It would have been in Najib's interest to do so which is why his silence for the last six months is puzzling.If it is true that US$620 million was returned to the Saudi monarch in August 2013, was Bank Negara aware of it? When such a huge sum of money exits our banking system, wouldn't it have alerted our central bank? What was Bank Negara's response?There is also the allegation that the money that was purportedly returned was actually kept frozen in a Singapore bank account. Was it unfrozen and sent back to the Saudi ruler? What is the role of the Singapore authorities in all this? The truth about the donation should be established once and for all.- thesundaily

Attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali may have inadvertently revealed there was an additional RM27 million from SRC International that went to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's personal accounts, claimed a DAP lawmaker.Tony Pua said the additional transactions were revealed in a chart held up by Apandi during his press conference yesterday.In a reproduction of the chart based on a photo from the press conference, Pua showed how in July 2014, RM35 million from SRC went to a construction firm and its subsidiary.

Of that amount, RM27 million ended up in what Pua claimed to be Najib's accounts."This was used to pay for Najib's credit cards," he alleged during a press conference at the Parliament lobby today.This brings the total SRC money channeled to Najib to RM69 million, Pua added.

The MACC document waved at the press conference by Attorney General Mohammed Apandi shows a further RM27 million came into Najib’s account via the UBG-linked company Putrajaya Perdana Berhad.

Previously it was alleged by the Wall Street Journal that RM42 million or SRC funds made its way into Najib's accounts in 2014.Apandi said yesterday Najib was unaware that any SRC money had made its way into his bank accounts.The attorney-general said evidence showed that at all material times, the prime minister was of the belief that the "payments made by him" were made from the Saudi royal family's RM2.6 billion political donation. - mk

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had purportedly recommended three charges for Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak under Section 403 of the Penal Code, according to sources familiar with the investigations.It is understood that the charges involved the transfer of funds originating from SRC International to Najib's bank accounts.Section 403 concerns “dishonest misappropriation of property”.The recommendation, sources claimed, was made to the Attorney-General’s Chambers but Malaysiakini could not obtain an official confirmation.Speaking on condition of anonymity, the sources indicated there was "circumstantial evidence" to charge the prime minister with possible abuse of power following allegations of funds being deposited into his private bank accounts.A possible hindrance to this, said the sources, would be the prime minister denying personal knowledge of the matter.According to the law, to prove abuse of power, the authorities need to show the person having knowledge of the said funds.Yesterday, attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali said Najib had no knowledge nor was he informed about the SRC transfer.Therefore, sources familiar with the case, said the commission proposed charges under Section 403 instead, which stated “whoever dishonestly misappropriates, or converts to his own use or causes any other person to dispose of, any property can be punished under this section”.“We have various strong case laws and Malaysian cases in securing conviction under Section 403.“This is what was recommended but Apandi did not answer this in his press conference yesterday,” said one of the sources.

The Penal Code provides various illustrations in regard to Section 403 – one of which states that supposedly A takes property belonging to Z out of Z's possession, in good faith, believing at the time when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself, A is not guilty of theft; but if A, after discovering his mistake, dishonestly appropriates the property to his own use, he is guilty of an offence under this section.Those found guilty are liable for a jail sentence of not less than six months and not more than five years, with whipping and shall also be liable to a fine.Investigators also claimed that the funds from SRC International, a former 1MDB subsidiary now under the Finance Ministry, came from the Retirement Fund Inc (KWAP), a pension fund for government servants.“We monitored the money trail and it came from KWAP,” said one investigator.Last November, SRC International said the entire RM4 billion loaned to KWAP on normal commercial terms is fully accounted for in its balance sheet, in accordance with standard accounting and governance practices.The firm expressed disappointment that "fabricated material with malicious intent" was published by certain media to suggest that these funds had been misappropriated.Najib has always denied abusing public funds for personal gain or committing any wrongdoing, and has blamed such allegations on those attempting to architect his downfall.Yesterday, Apandi (photo) announced that after having studied the MACC’s investigation papers, he was satisfied Najib did not commit any criminal offence.He added that he would return the papers to MACC with the instruction for the commission to close the investigation.This apparently did not go down well with senior MACC officials.MACC's director of special operations Bahri Mohd Zin today told the Star Online that the commission is likely to appeal, as he described the cases as “straightforward”.MACC not allowed to probe RM2.6b ‘donation’ overseasMeanwhile, sources claimed that investigators were prevented from probing the money trail outside of Malaysia.This is despite reports earlier claiming that MACC recorded statements from SRC International's managing director Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil and director Mohd Suboh Yasin – both of whom are overseas.It is understood that the MACC officers sought assistance to investigate the RM2.6 billion donation by utilising the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) Treaty that Malaysia has inked with several countries.During the Perwaja Bhd case involving its managing director, Eric Chia, then attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail allowed the probe to be conducted in both Switzerland and Hong Kong under the MLA, where statements were recorded from witnesses in the two countries.

The donation was said to be from the Saudi royal family, which was transferred to Najib in two tranches in 2013 as political donation ahead of the 13th general election.Yesterday, Apandi said investigations showed the sum was given without strings attached and the prime minister returned RM2.03 billion in August the same year.However, sources said information about the prime minister returning a substantial sum back to the donor was not from the MACC investigation papers.Contacted for comment, Bahri remained tightlipped on whether the investigation papers recommended charges against the prime minister.“I do not wish to comment on that. As I mentioned before, the next step is to work towards appealing the AG’s decision,” he told Malaysiakini.Despite attempts to call and message, Malaysiakini is still awaiting Apandi’s response. - mk

A court ruling last year could allow the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to legally challenge attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali.Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) legal coordinator Michelle Yesudas said a court ruling last year disputes how absolute the AG's powers are."In a recent case, High Court judge Vazeer Alam ruled that the decision of the AG can be challenged if it is based on an irrelevant consideration, exercised unlawfully, or if it is an abuse of power," Michelle told Malaysiakini.She was citing Justice Vazeer's ruling, in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur, in dismissing former attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail's application to strike out the suits by former Commercial Crime Investigation Department director Ramli Yusuff and his lawyer Rosli Dahlan.Ramli and Rosli are suing Gani, former inspector-general of police Musa Hassan and ironically, several MACC officers, for abuse of power, malfeasance in the performance of their public duty, malicious prosecution and prosecutorial misconduct, among others.Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Azalina Othman Said then told the people not to question Apandi's decision, declaring that Apandi had absolute powers to make such decisions.However, Michelle said discretionary powers do not make an AG immune from public scrutiny."This alone should be a ground for reform, not a ground to prevent the general public from forming opinions about important scandals that involve our prime minister and public funds."(Azalina's) statement is a low blow to free speech, democratic participation and an excuse to police the rakyat's opinion and to deter critical thinking," Michelle said.Article 145(3) of the federal constitution grants the AG absolute discretionary powers on whether or not to pursue prosecution, except in syariah, native or military courts. - mk

Dr Mahathir Mohamad has roped in Singapore into the RM2.6 billion donation issue after the attorney-general cleared Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak of any wrongdoing.In a blog posting, the former premier noted how attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali said that Najib had returned RM2.03 billion back to the Saudi royal family in August 2013.“How and when was this done?“We are told the balance is frozen by Singapore. Can Singapore explain the unfreezing and the delivery back to the Saudis?“Or does Singapore also believe in the free gift story, the letter and the Saudi admission?“Singapore is a financial centre. Can it be so gullible?” he asked.On July 22 last year, Reuters reported that Singaporean police had frozen two bank accounts in connection with an investigation into alleged financial mismanagement and graft at 1MDB."On July 15, 2015, we issued orders under the Criminal Procedure Code to prohibit any dealings in respect of money in two bank accounts that are relevant to the investigation," Singapore police had said in a statement.However, the police did not identify the banks or the accounts in question because the investigation was still ongoing.Malaysian authorities had claimed that the sum had originated from a Middle Eastern source and not from 1MDB as some had alleged.Yesterday, Apandi said investigations revealed that the RM2.6 billion was a donation from the Saudi royal family ahead of the general election in May 2013 and was given without strings attached.'A letter from a deceased person not enough'Meanwhile, Mahathir said there appeared to be a letter stating that the sum was for the prime minister to fight against terrorism.“Who is this Arab? How does he have huge sum of money to give away? What is his business, what is his bank? How was the money transferred, what documents prove these?“Just a letter from a deceased person or some nonentity is not enough...,” he said.International news organisations have published conflicting versions of this donation issue, where an unnamed source told BBC the money came from the late Saudi monarch, King Abdullah. The Wall Street Journal, however, claimed that Saudi ministries were in the dark. - mk

disclaimer

1. This is a personal weblog. The opinions expressed here represent my own and is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, institution, political organization, or individual.

2. Any view or opinion represented in the blog comments are personal and is accredited to the respective commentor / visitor to this blog.

3. This blogger reserves the right to moderate comment suitability in support of respecting racial, religious and political sensitivities, and in order to protect the rights of each commentor where available.